Author summary
7% 2 analyzed articles/videos 5,908 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Sarah Reber results contain 37 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Confirmation Bias , and Appeal to Authority , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 3.4% saturation with 802 hits . Analysis detected 4,794 faulty-reasoning hits from 23,632 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 0.5% and a BS Rank of 1% (9,428 of 9,471 authors). This Sarah Reber is better (less manipulative) than 99.50% of the peer group. Sarah Reber
Author details
Total words: 23,632
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
1% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 0.5% percentile 0.5% BS Score2 analyzed articles23.6K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 3.3% 3.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 3.4% 3.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 0.2% 0.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 1.1% 1.1% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 0.7% 0.7% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 1.1% 1.1% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.2% 0.2% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.4% 1.4% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 0.7% 0.7% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 0.2% 0.2% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 10% 10% 20% 20% 30% 30% 40% 40% 50% 50% Framing Effect: Author 3.3%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 3.4%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 0.2%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 1.1%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 0.7%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 1.1%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Author 0.2%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 0.7%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 0.2%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 0.9%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.3%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 1.9% Slippery Slope: Author 0.2%, sitewide 1.7% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst